Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 2.6.28 Kernel Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 2.6.28 Kernel Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 2.6.28 Kernel Benchmarks

    The Linux 2.6.28 kernel was released this past week in time for the holidays. This quarterly update to the Linux kernel brought the stabilization of the EXT4 file-system, the Graphics Execution Manager, a host of new drivers, and a variety of other updates. For some weekend benchmarking we had tested the latest Linux 2.6.28 kernel along with other recent kernels using the Phoronix Test Suite.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13315

  • #2
    Wow, now that was a pointless series of benchmarks...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by colo View Post
      Wow, now that was a pointless series of benchmarks...
      If there had been some kind of serious performance regression that they caught, I don't think you'd be saying that. Just because it wasn't particularly fascinating doesn't mean it was pointless.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by colo View Post
        Wow, now that was a pointless series of benchmarks...
        I couldn't agree more.

        Comment


        • #5
          It's NOT pointless

          I agree with ethana2. These benchmarks are proof the kernel guys are not introducing regressions..

          Comment


          • #6
            Or proof that they're not improving, if your glass is half-empty...

            Comment


            • #7
              Registered just to post this:

              FPS in wine dropped sharply with 2.6.28, making it almost unplayable. I reverted back to 2.6.27.10 for now. All I play is hl1 based mods, so you might want to try benchmarking those.

              Also I noticed that sound messed up every one in a while while watching videos. A quick pause/play fixed it though.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by alexforcefive View Post
                Or proof that they're not improving, if your glass is half-empty...
                Nope, it just can't be better :P

                @hybrid-kernel

                It's wine problem. Maybe you'll have to tune Linux scheduller especially for wine to have better experience in games. It's mentioned at wine forum.
                Last edited by kraftman; 12-28-2008, 05:26 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I really like what you are doing here, by carefully benchmarking every kernel and whatsoever, but I think the data could be presented better.
                  Right now there is 2-3 pictures per page with a few paragraphs of text spanning over 6 pages, not mentioning that the graphs don't show anything that really needs graphs. It's frustrating to keep going over every page just to see something that could be summed up with 1 or 2 sentences.
                  Perhaps you could make the graphs more compact in the future, because now they take up too much space and are bulky. Also, I think it is safe to allow more information per page, because now there's atleast half of the page height still empty white, unused.
                  Thanks

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by hoho View Post
                    Also, I think it is safe to allow more information per page, because now there's atleast half of the page height still empty white, unused.
                    Off topic, but...

                    More
                    [next page]
                    advertisement
                    [next page]
                    views
                    [next page]
                    per
                    [next page]
                    article.

                    Nothing new here. Not the first nor the last to do it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by hoho View Post
                      I really like what you are doing here, by carefully benchmarking every kernel and whatsoever, but I think the data could be presented better.
                      Right now there is 2-3 pictures per page with a few paragraphs of text spanning over 6 pages, not mentioning that the graphs don't show anything that really needs graphs. It's frustrating to keep going over every page just to see something that could be summed up with 1 or 2 sentences.
                      Perhaps you could make the graphs more compact in the future, because now they take up too much space and are bulky. Also, I think it is safe to allow more information per page, because now there's atleast half of the page height still empty white, unused.
                      Thanks
                      We have costs that need to be covered somehow... Hence advertisements and Phoronix Premium. Premium subscribers can click a single button and view all six pages on a single page.
                      Michael Larabel
                      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It really proves how useful it is to have a performance testing infrastructure in place (the kernel is thoroughly benchmarked on every RC, by Intel and IBM people especially) and how it prevents regressions. If only Xorg could do the same...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          @ hoho

                          If you can't click 6 times to see the full benchmark, then just don't turn on your PC and surf the net. Also considering this website has interesting Linux articles and it's free, Michael does a really good job with advertisment not being frustrating and I appreciate this...and we should all appreciate this.

                          About the benchmark, I'm glad to see there aren't regressions and this isn't something obvious. I know this can sound stupid, but I'de be curious to do the same benchmark running different DM, for example running KDE4, XFCE and stuff like that just to see if there are some serious differences running one or the other. I hope Michael can someday do this as I would really appreciate it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Why not using ext4 to mount the ext3 partition?

                            Although I do not think the whole test is worthless, it would have been MUCH more interesting if you were mounting the ext3 partition with ext4 module - which is possible thanks to ext4 backward-compatibility and still is supposed to provide some of the performance improvements of ext4.

                            Any chance you update your test with this?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Weren't those performance improvements only for newly created files?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X